[PEN-L:8804] Re: punctuated equilibrium

[Peter Dorman <dormanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am no paleobiologist, and so I just have to take the word of folks
like Gould and Eldridge about radical discontinuities (punctuations) in
the evolutionary record.  But I think they have muddied things a bit by
identifying panglossian evolutionism with steady, incremental change,
and then counterposing their change-through-major-shock model.
Panglossian conclusions are driven not so much by the pace of evolution
as by the assumption of single-peaked fitness functions (single
equilibrium).  By recognizing that there are complex interactions
between organisms' traits, and that there are multiple, locally-optimal
physiological "solutions" to environmental challenges, biologists could
escape from panglossian dogma with or without punctuation.  My hunch is
that G & E are not on top of the mathematics here and have not been able
to make the most cogent replies to their attackers.  In econ many of us
have been through this same battle already, and we've identified the
relevant formalism.

Any thoughts?

Peter